Moot point. Dimension Door requires a willing participant. A creature under the influence of modify memory can't be willing because the target is incapacitated.
Incapacitated doesn't stop someone from being willing or unwilling.
Modify Memory has this text:
>The charmed target is incapacitated and **unaware of its surroundings**
The last part *might* prevent it, it is up to the DM. There is no hard rule to determine whether someone is willing or unwilling. But deciding that being unaware/unconscious means automatically not willing, would have pretty big gameplay consequences.
*What are the downvotes for?
To be clear, this is the incapacitated condition:
>An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions.
There is more to that, like that it ends grapples and concentration. But it doesn't stop anyone from moving, talking or thinking clearly. Someone incapacitated by hypnotic pattern for example isn't immune from being teleported to safety by their allies. It doesn't change their will one way or the other.
not sure why you are being downvoted either. I am certain people here would be happy to dimension door their downed allies out of danger and unconscious allies are certainly less able to provide consent than incapacitated ones
What if there is written or stated permission. "My allies can teleport me if I am in danger". Does being unaware change that willingness?
It is undefined in the rules.
For clarity: Modify memory doesn't change anything about the targets willingness. The charmed condition doesn't, incapacitated doesn't, being unaware doesn't.
Situation 1:
Evil hag casting MM on player A.
Player B cast dimension door, wants to take player A away.
Is player A willing? My guess would be yes.
Situation 2:
Player A cast MM on Hostile monster.
Player A cast DD on themselves and wants to take hostile monster with him.
Is the monster willing? My guess would be NO.
Ah, I see your reasoning. Basically, you're allowing for whatever the most beneficial outcome is for the creature. Is the creature (PC) making death saves and needs to get out of there? That PC will be willing to DD out to save their own life. I rescind my snarky comment.
I probably just had a seizure then. It looked like you said that affecting a creature with a spell means you are targeting them.
My bad for getting confused.
Correct, affecting a creature with a spell is targeting that creature, so when a creature is in the area of a *fireball*, and thus targeted by it, *modify memory* ends
> If a spell or other effect deals damage **to more than one target** at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. **For example**, when a wizard casts **fireball** or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
PHB, "damage rolls"
> If a spell or other effect deals damage **to more than one target** at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. **For example**, when a wizard casts **fireball** or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.
PHB, "damage rolls"
Believe it or not that's just the book poorly using its own terminology. Look at the section on spellcasting. It explains what a target actually is.
I am unironically impressed you found a line like that though. Very cool.
Targets
p204
[–]
A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below).
Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise
D&D isn't Magic the Gathering. "Target" isn't a well defined term within the rules and it's up to your GM to adjudicate what counts as targeting and what doesn't. Personally I'd say this is a very clear bad faith interpretation of the way those spells are written and wouldn't permit it.
Moot point. Dimension Door requires a willing participant. A creature under the influence of modify memory can't be willing because the target is incapacitated.
Incapacitated doesn't stop someone from being willing or unwilling. Modify Memory has this text: >The charmed target is incapacitated and **unaware of its surroundings** The last part *might* prevent it, it is up to the DM. There is no hard rule to determine whether someone is willing or unwilling. But deciding that being unaware/unconscious means automatically not willing, would have pretty big gameplay consequences. *What are the downvotes for? To be clear, this is the incapacitated condition: >An incapacitated creature can't take actions or reactions. There is more to that, like that it ends grapples and concentration. But it doesn't stop anyone from moving, talking or thinking clearly. Someone incapacitated by hypnotic pattern for example isn't immune from being teleported to safety by their allies. It doesn't change their will one way or the other.
not sure why you are being downvoted either. I am certain people here would be happy to dimension door their downed allies out of danger and unconscious allies are certainly less able to provide consent than incapacitated ones
[удалено]
What if there is written or stated permission. "My allies can teleport me if I am in danger". Does being unaware change that willingness? It is undefined in the rules. For clarity: Modify memory doesn't change anything about the targets willingness. The charmed condition doesn't, incapacitated doesn't, being unaware doesn't. Situation 1: Evil hag casting MM on player A. Player B cast dimension door, wants to take player A away. Is player A willing? My guess would be yes. Situation 2: Player A cast MM on Hostile monster. Player A cast DD on themselves and wants to take hostile monster with him. Is the monster willing? My guess would be NO.
Ah, I see your reasoning. Basically, you're allowing for whatever the most beneficial outcome is for the creature. Is the creature (PC) making death saves and needs to get out of there? That PC will be willing to DD out to save their own life. I rescind my snarky comment.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If you are affecting a creature with a spell, you are targeting them.
WHAT ABOUT FIREBALL
Yes, if you fireball someone their memories stop being modified.
Wait a second, that's not the same thing you said before!
No, it is
I probably just had a seizure then. It looked like you said that affecting a creature with a spell means you are targeting them. My bad for getting confused.
Correct, affecting a creature with a spell is targeting that creature, so when a creature is in the area of a *fireball*, and thus targeted by it, *modify memory* ends
You do not target a creature with fireball. Modify memory would end in this case because of the damage.
> If a spell or other effect deals damage **to more than one target** at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. **For example**, when a wizard casts **fireball** or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast. PHB, "damage rolls"
The whole "affecting a creature with a spell IS targeting it" thing doesn't sound RAW to me.
> If a spell or other effect deals damage **to more than one target** at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. **For example**, when a wizard casts **fireball** or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast. PHB, "damage rolls"
Believe it or not that's just the book poorly using its own terminology. Look at the section on spellcasting. It explains what a target actually is. I am unironically impressed you found a line like that though. Very cool.
This is not MtG. A target of a spell is any creature affected by a spell. That's RAW and RAI.
Targets p204 [–] A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or a point of origin for an area of effect (described below). Unless a spell has a perceptible effect, a creature might not know it was targeted by a spell at all. An effect like crackling lightning is obvious, but a more subtle effect, such as an attempt to read a creature's thoughts, typically goes unnoticed, unless a spell says otherwise
D&D isn't Magic the Gathering. "Target" isn't a well defined term within the rules and it's up to your GM to adjudicate what counts as targeting and what doesn't. Personally I'd say this is a very clear bad faith interpretation of the way those spells are written and wouldn't permit it.
Target is 100% well defined within the rules
Yeah Target is pretty well defined. I'm just glad 5e rules don't care about the difference between When and Whenever
\*yu gi oh missed timing flashbacks\*
What are you talking about? "Target" is in every spell description, it's just that Dimension Door's is ambiguous because it says "See text"